[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Unless you actually think that people are that stupid not to figure that out for themselves.

Apple obviously think there are plenty of people too stupid to figure it out. (And to be fair, I agree, there probably are plenty
that will take their new marketing page at face value)

[whoever,hey]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Unless you actually think that people are that stupid not to figure that out for themselves.

Yes some people are.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

So the pixels aren't visible as long as they are close in colour to neighbouring ones? That makes them visible then!

That's not what I said.

Using a very specific black on white aliased line to prove the point doesn't seem to have much value if pretty much everything is anti aliased.

[IslandNiles]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

I agree with that entirely .

Lets call that middle ground

Miracles do happen!!

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

well pixels are either invisible or they're not. If they're 'sort of invisible as long as you don't try too hard', it kinda defeats the marketing message doesn't it?

No, not "sort of invisible as long as you don't try too hard".

More like invisible as long as you don't purposely go to ludicrous extreme lengths to see pixels.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

Yeah theres that rude thing again.

Dont be so bloody patronising. I understand all the maths behind the entire argument. I disagree with the premise of it though.

I don't get which part you disagree with.

Is it the suggestion that a sufficiently high PPI will render individual pixels invisible at a particular approximate viewing distance?

Is it that the typical viewing distances suggested by Apple are unrealistic?

Is it the suggestion that the larger the screen, the greater the viewing distance will be?

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

Who determines what the 'typical viewing distance' is? Ah right, that'd be Apple.

How about you put your money where your mouth is with that argument, by telling us:

A. What you believe Apple say constitutes a typical viewing distance.

and

B. What you believe actually constitutes a typical viewing distance.

Then we can judge how wildly disingenuous Apple are being here.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

I agree with that entirely .

Lets call that middle ground

Weird then that people disagree with all my posts that have essentially been saying exactly the same thing.

[whoever,hey]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I don't get which part you disagree with.

Is it the suggestion that a sufficiently high PPI will render individual pixels invisible at a particular approximate viewing distance?

Is it that the typical viewing distances suggested by Apple are unrealistic?

Is it the suggestion that the larger the screen, the greater the viewing distance will be?

Its the fact that these various devices are classified as retina based on airy fairy PPI/viewing distance ratios which have changed over time as different devices have been released.

[swordman]

Still banging on about this retina is he, we have had the popular camera crap next he'll be telling us the claim that ios 6 is the most advanced os is true

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

Its the fact that these various devices are classified as retina based on airy fairy PPI/viewing distance ratios which have changed over time as different devices have been released.

I thought you said you understood the maths (with relation to viewing distances)?

In which case I don't know why you just posted the above.

Do you agree that a sufficiently high PPI will render individual pixels invisible at a particular approximate viewing distance?

Do you agree that, as a general rule, the larger the screen, the greater the viewing distance will be?

Would you say that the typical viewing distances suggested by Apple are unrealistic?

[whoever,hey]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I thought you said you understood the maths (with relation to viewing distances)?

In which case I don't know why you just posted the above.

How about instead of the vague waffle about how vague it all is, if you said which of the above you disagree with, I might be able to follow what you're trying to say.

Do you agree that a sufficiently high PPI will render individual pixels invisible at a particular approximate viewing distance?

Do you agree that, as a general rule, the larger the screen, the greater the viewing distance will be?

Would you say that the typical viewing distances suggested by Apple are unrealistic?

Its apple that dont supply/comply with the numbers not me.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

Its apple that dont supply the numbers not me.

Forget anything that Apple says for a minute.

Do you agree that a sufficiently high PPI will render individual pixels invisible at a particular approximate viewing distance?

Do you agree that, as a general rule, the larger the screen, the greater the viewing distance will be?

[swordman]

How come on that site they never mentioned ios maps that's very unique to ios

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

How about you put your money where your mouth is with that argument, by telling us:

A. What you believe Apple say constitutes a typical viewing distance.

and

B. What you believe actually constitutes a typical viewing distance.

Then we can judge how wildly disingenuous Apple are being here.

I don't own an ipad (or a 10" tablet) so can't offer my own. The first part is widely publicised to justify their retina labelling though, not sure why you need to me to find it for you.

Do you agree that, as a general rule, the larger the screen, the greater the viewing distance will be?

I will say, as a general rule, no, its not that straightforward.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

I don't own an ipad (or a 10" tablet) so can't offer my own. The first part is widely publicised to justify their retina labelling though, not sure why you need to me to find it for you.

I will say, as a general rule, no, its not that straightforward.

You are suggesting that actual typical viewing distances are different from typical viewing distances cited by Apple.

Simply making insinuations, by saying that Apple decide what viewing distances apply, doesn't cut it as an argument.

If you want to make that argument, you need to tell us what you are basing your suggestion that those typical viewing distances are somehow unreasonable on.

So what would you say might be a general rule with respect to any correlation between screen size and typical viewing distance?

The larger the screen, the greater the typical viewing distance seems like an entirely to me.

There may be exceptions, but it seems like an obvious rule of thumb.

But that's how these discussions go - you and several others like to come up with some extreme atypical example and use that to pointlessly try to discredit what would reasonably be considered typical by most people.

[IslandNiles]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

I will say, as a general rule, no, its not that straightforward.

I'd tend to say that as a general rule it is true. You probably wouldn't have a 15" laptop screen as close to your face as a 4.7" mobile phone screen, and you wouldn't have a 40" TV screen as close as a laptop screen. It's trickier when it comes to different sizes of TV. Clearly the optimal viewing distance changes but most people's actual viewing distance doesn't. If I replaced our 40" living room TV with a 60" screen, it would go in the same place and I'd sit in the same place, just because of how the room is set up. That's the same for most people, I would think.

All that said, I can't think of many situations where you'd naturally have bigger screens closer to you. In general, the bigger the screen, the further away you are.

[swordman]

Problem is retina is not a general rule therefore your assumptions do not apply. To have a retina Ipad you are not allowed to hold it as close a your face as an iPhone otherwise it does not qualify.

The only viewing distances allowed are those set by Apple, I would however not think it unrealistic that you look at a 9" screen from say 12" but that is not allowed.

I suspect this is part of the reason what the 8" mini is not retina yet.

[IslandNiles]

Originally Posted by swordman

Problem is retina is not a general rule therefore your assumptions do not apply. To have a retina Ipad you are not allowed to hold it as close a your face as an iPhone otherwise it does not qualify.

The only viewing distances allowed are those set by Apple, I would however not think it unrealistic that you look at a 9" screen from say 12" but that is not allowed.

I suspect this is part of the reason what the 8" mini is not retina yet.

You are allowed to look at it from whatever distance you choose. Just as an HD television of a particular size will have an optimal viewing distance. If you sit further away you won't see the full benefits of HD, but you're perfectly entitled to sit further away if you want to.

EDIT: Anyway, I think I've said all I can about the Retina issue now. The discussion is going round in circles. I hope it moves on to something else soon!!

[Stiggles]

Originally Posted by swordman

Still banging on about this retina is he, we have had the popular camera crap next he'll be telling us the claim that ios 6 is the most advanced os is true

There is no way anyone could agree with that surely!!

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by swordman

Problem is retina is not a general rule therefore your assumptions do not apply. To have a retina Ipad you are not allowed to hold it as close a your face as an iPhone otherwise it does not qualify.

The only viewing distances allowed are those set by Apple, I would however not think it unrealistic that you look at a 9" screen from say 12" but that is not allowed.

I suspect this is part of the reason what the 8" mini is not retina yet.

It is a general rule based on pixel density and typical viewing distances.

Pointing out that the you might be able to see pixels on an iPad if you hold it unusually close to your face is utterly pointless.

From this article:

"What about this rumored iPad 2 with 264ppi? That brings the critical distance back down to 13 inches. Sure, this is higher than the iPhone 4's 10.5", but when I'm using my iPad, I'm usually either sitting with it in my lap or lying in bed with it propped on my belly, largely because it's too heavy to hold in one hand for prolonged periods. In all these poses it's between 15 and 20 inches from my eyes.

Conclusion

I think it's fair to say that, for users with average eyesight using their iPad in fairly normal ways (i.e., in their lap, on a desk, or on their chest when lying down), the rumored new display could legitimately be called a Retina Display despite having a lower pixel-per-inch figure than the iPhone 4."

You and several others have wanged on about this "retina decree", and how its oh so convenient that Apple dictate the viewing distance required.

What none of you have ever managed to do is demonstrate that the viewing distances Apple cite are anything other than perfectly reasonable and typical.

If the mathematics from above comes up with a figure of 13", its not as though the screen will suddenly look pixellated if anyone ever holds it just one inch closed than that. For most people it likely won't.

The proof is in the pudding - I can see for myself just by looking at an iPad that I can't distinguish pixels.

And for the love of God, stop going on about how this is about defending Apple. It absolutely isn't - its simply about me appreciating that hi res displays these days are of a high enough pixel density to render individual pixels invisible in typical use.

I still have no idea why that simple enough fact is met with such resistance when it is so obviously true.

I have no idea why people feel the need to conjure up some extreme atypical example as though that disproves what is apparent in typical use.

[swordman]

I have likewise no idea why you feel the need to change the retina decree which is specific for each device into some general rule of thumb.

Anyway you ignore any post you can't answer and continue with the apple mantra.. You really are lost

[calico_pie]

What exactly are you saying?

Other than "if you hold an iPhone or iPad unusually close to your face, you might be able to make out individual pixels"?

If Apple are saying referring to typical use, its utterly pointless to say it may not be the case in atypical use.

I really am lost?

Have a word with yourself!

[Hugh_]

Originally Posted by swordman

Just ignore what I've said and continue with the apple mantra.. You really are lost

Why do you hate the fact Retina displays are so good? Its only a piece of class

[Zack06]

Originally Posted by Hugh_

Why do you hate the fact Retina displays are so good? Its only a piece of class

The Nexus 4, Nexus 10, Galaxy S3, S4, One X and One displays are all better so that obviously isn't the case...